Re: g_uv = \eta_uv + h_uv

On May 23, 9:16 am, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 23, 8:45 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On May 23, 7:20 am, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 22, 6:10 pm, "Juan R." González-Álvarez

<juanREM...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote on Fri, 22 May 2009 14:57:33 -0700:

Juan you are a charlatan.

Ken you are a pretender.

Thanks Juan, for your input to the Group,
you are excused, I can take it from here.
Ken

Donk on donk violence is a poker term which describes two clueless
poker players going at it with eachother with overall bad preflop and
postflop play.

On one hand, we have Ken who knows absolutely nothing about general
relativity but makes up for it with stubborn idiocy and baseless
personality attacks [still can't show how I plagarize, Ken?]. On the
other we have Juan R. who is significantly more educated but is
completely crippled by his tunnel vision regarding his pet theories
and ideas, who couldn't concede a point or argue honestly if his life
depended on it.

Hard to say who the favorite is here.

Your idiot reponses are more useless than Juan's.

Hey! Words can hurt!

In my books, you Eric and Juan are a pair of
fucking idiots, who have no clue about the way
GR has evolved in the last 30 years, pardon my
language but that's the truth.

We both know how the "truth" is rather subjective with you, Ken.

I like to think that I know the high points of how the theory has
evolved.


GPoR now forms the foundation of Quantum Theory,

No, Lorentz invariance + unitary operators.

and EXPLAINS the Coulomb force strength effects
between charged particles.

RANDOM capITALIZATION of pointless WORDS makes you look like a FUCKING
LUNATIC.

I personally checked that, and independantly
verified those claims...for me it's simple stuff.

Oh, you *personally*? Well, OK then. Never mind that you have no
objective qualifications much less a decent education in the subject.


You people should stop wasting time, and if able,
use your mind and time to embrace this grand
universe.

I have an excellent grasp on the subsets that are interesting to me.

Follow the "Unitious Fusion" process I posted to
formulate Unitivity, from Weyl, Einstein and Kaluza,
as a start, and figure it out for yourselves.

I would, but I have more important things to do. Like gazing into my
navel, and counting grains of rice.


The math is simple, even for a pair of clowns
like Juan and Eric!!
Solve this,

S dS = X dX and S /\S = X /\X

permits a continuum and a quantized solution.

Hard to solve what is not adequately explained. It is just a spray of
meaningless letters that happen to look like wedge products and
differentials until you actually explain something.


Next, the metricity of dS uses R_abcd =/=0,
but the metricity of dX uses R_abcd =0, with
an ACTION connection.

Have a look at Eq.(4)http://physics.trak4.com/GR_Charge_Couple.pdf

and write it this way,
S^2 = X^2 + h   ,    h =  a*b ,
smooth as silk, see the Action connection, "h",
in accord with the EFE's.

HEY KEN, YOU HAVE BEEN POSTING THIS FOR YEARS AND YOU STILL HAVE NOT
SHOWN HOW YOUR CRAP IS A SOLUTION TO THE COUPLED EINSTEIN-MAXWELL
EQUATIONS.


Here's what QFT needs, Modern SpaceTimehttp://physics.trak4.com/
Eliminates the imaginary "i", with a mere
transformation...back to reality.

Oh, another one of those loons who whines about complex analysis? Sure
why not - a polystupid must not limit himself to one particular
subject.


The equations I find most useful, and set-forth,
predict a null result from both LIGO and GP-b,

Well, since GP-B didn't null and binary systems decay exactly as if
gravitational radiation were real, and given the independent
confirmation of frame dragging in the LAGEOS I/II spacecraft as told
to you for years upon years now....

experiments differing from classical GR predictions,
and are experimentally verified, as C-Dyn published
prior to the experimental results.

If you mean "falsified" when you said "verified", then I agree.


Nice stuff eh?
Ken S. Tucker

Regards
Ken S. Tucker

.

Quantcast